Displaying BC and AD instead of AUC?

[Brynjar]

You can reread this thread. I'm not going to rehash the variety of arguments that have been made. Suffice it to say that while you may not value it, other players will.

I still don't see anyone explaining how it would make the game any better. I see people wanting it because that's what they are used to, that's it. I have also asked why people even need to know which year it is without getting any answer. It's not a historical simulator, comparing the map to historical maps after the start date is pointless, especially if you don't play as Rome, which for a lot of (most?) people will be most of the time.

I would value not having any anglicanized names (map and characters) in the game. Having it as an option wouldn't necessary make the game any better though.

 

[NicklasK]

I still don't see anyone explaining how it would make the game any better. I see people wanting it because that's what they are used to, that's it. I have also asked why people even need to know which year it is without getting any answer. It's not a historical simulator, comparing the map to historical maps after the start date is pointless, especially if you don't play as Rome, which for a lot of (most?) people will be most of the time.

I would value not having any anglicanized names (map and characters) in the game. Having it as an option wouldn't necessary make the game any better though.

People would like to see BC/AD in-game because that is more relateable. Some players like to immerse themselves in the world they have created and make up stories as they go along - this is easier if the dates are in a format that they are familiar with as opposed to the AUC format.

There are many different ways to play games from Paradox; one is to look at hardcore numbers and try to paint as much of the map as they can before the end-date. Others use it as a means of alternative history telling, RP'ing their way through a campaign. The BC/AD format is all about fun and easy access to information.

Ask yourself the following two questions:

• Will this suggestion make it more fun for others thus possibly extending the life of this game? Yes
• Will this suggestion make it less fun for me because I'm now faced with more options than I had before? No

I'm curious to learn why you are so staunchly against a feature that essentially changes nothing for you - it has become more commonplace on gaming forums over the past decade to try to limit the fun of others, we really need to turn that around. There is absolutely no need to discourage the addition of small easy-to-do features that only has a positive impact on the game and is left optional for you to turn on and off.

 

[Cheexsta]

I still don't see anyone explaining how it would make the game any better. I see people wanting it because that's what they are used to, that's it. I have also asked why people even need to know which year it is without getting any answer. It's not a historical simulator, comparing the map to historical maps after the start date is pointless, especially if you don't play as Rome, which for a lot of (most?) people will be most of the time.

I would value not having any anglicanized names (map and characters) in the game. Having it as an option wouldn't necessary make the game any better though.

Ultimately, people want it for their own reasons - why does the reason matter to you so much? Having the option doesn't affect you either way, by your own admission, so why is it such a problem to let people have a small feature they want?

If you're worried about the working hours involved in getting this into the game, you needn't be - the code is already in EUR, and has been confirmed to already be in IR. The only difference is how the information is displayed: whether in the core UI or by tooltip.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Again, you're completely missing (deliberately ignoring?) the actual reason BCE would be added.

AUC is in the game because Johan wants it.

BCE is in the game because it's the calendar all of the players use in real life and serves a useful reference point. (BCE is already confirmed as in the game as a tooltip; we're just suggesting an option to make it the primary date.)

None of those other calendars are either (1) wanted by Johan or (2) used by players in real life. So, no, there's no logical obligation to add them. Even if there was an obligation to be logically consistent in which calendars are in the game, which there isn't.

And you are deliberately trying to cloud the point I made that we have already had demands for other dating systems (largely for immersion when playing other factions). The list method you suggest would get clumsy very quickly if even a few others were added.

If a switch for date display were added, then it needs to be a better option than a list, even if just so other era relevant dating systems *can* be added should this be considered valuable later on, possibly by DLC concentrating on a particular area or culture, possibly just after a change of developer or product lead.

There is at least one other "living" calendar from the era, that being the Hebrew calendar.

 

[Brynjar]

People would like to see BC/AD in-game because that is more relateable. Some players like to immerse themselves in the world they have created and make up stories as they go along - this is easier if the dates are in a format that they are familiar with as opposed to the AUC format.

There are many different ways to play games from Paradox; one is to look at hardcore numbers and try to paint as much of the map as they can before the end-date. Others use it as a means of alternative history telling, RP'ing their way through a campaign. The BC/AD format is all about fun and easy access to information.

How will making BC the only shown date (through an option) instead of a tooltip (which is already confirmed) make it easier to immerse themselves in the fantasy/alternative world they are creating? If people were requesting a more historically accurate date format I could understand it affecting immersion, but not for a BC format. The information will be there without an optional date format, and it will be very easy to access the information.

Having the option doesn't affect you either way, by your own admission, so why is it such a problem to let people have a small feature they want?

I never said that. I don't really care which format they end up with, as long as it's easy to know how long I have left until the game ends (that rules out basing it on consulships). Making it an option however is a different issue, as it will require more time to implement. By itself it's not a lot of time, but there are countless small requests like this which can be made, many of which will have a much bigger impact on 'immersion' than having the BC date format as an option instead of a tooltip. For initial release I would much prefer the devs to spend their time on content which have a bigger impact on gameplay, such as adding an extra event (which may take about as much time as adding this specific option) or even spending a bit of extra time on QA.

If you're worried about the working hours involved in getting this into the game, you needn't be - the code is already in EUR, and has been confirmed to already be in IR. The only difference is how the information is displayed: whether in the core UI or by tooltip.

What? Where have the code for optional UI formats been confirmed? That is what you guys are asking for now, and that's what I'm opposing. Most people seems to be happy enough with the tooltip which is already in EU: Rome. Like you said yourself almost two weeks ago, "EUR solved it quite well".

Spending additional resources to add nothing to gameplay is a waste of time at this point, which is why I would probably argue against anyone requesting more standardized map names at this point even though I find it quite ridiculous to have names like "Rome" and "Carthage" on the map along with "Mare Erythraeum", "Oceanus Atlanticus" etc.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

People would like to see BC/AD in-game because that is more relateable. Some players like to immerse themselves in the world they have created and make up stories as they go along - this is easier if the dates are in a format that they are familiar with as opposed to the AUC format.

There are many different ways to play games from Paradox; one is to look at hardcore numbers and try to paint as much of the map as they can before the end-date. Others use it as a means of alternative history telling, RP'ing their way through a campaign. The BC/AD format is all about fun and easy access to information.

I'm greatly in favour of role-playing campaigns in Paradox games. Doing so needs you to put yourself in the mindset of the era.

Where in doing so does using a dating system based on a *possible* event 300 years in the future from the start, that won't be created for 500 years after that point come into it?
It's actually antithetical to a role-playing point of view, because it uses a reference from outside of the context of the scenario.
Whilst AUC isn't brilliant for it ( being created 200 years after the start), it is at least a dating system from within the era of the game.

Ask yourself the following two questions:

• Will this suggestion make it more fun for others thus possibly extending the life of this game? Yes
• Will this suggestion make it less fun for me because I'm now faced with more options than I had before? No

I'm curious to learn why you are so staunchly against a feature that essentially changes nothing for you - it has become more commonplace on gaming forums over the past decade to try to limit the fun of others, we really need to turn that around. There is absolutely no need to discourage the addition of small easy-to-do features that only has a positive impact on the game and is left optional for you to turn on and off.

The thread has moved on a lot. Initially the argument was to take AUC away, or make BCE the primary display - thus making it less fun for those wanting (greater) immersion and role play.
Having a switch for the dating system *may* be simple and easy to do. It may not, since switching would require all the tool tip code and menu code that references dates to have to be rewritten and tested, rather than reusing working code from other games. It'd require extensive checks that nothing uses the wrong date system, or it could cause really nasty bugs - uncompleteable projects or movement as it suddenly takes 753 extra years to do something, or some value that should be positive suddenly being negative, and breaking connected values.

 

[NicklasK]

Where in doing so does using a dating system based on a *possible* event 300 years in the future from the start, that won't be created for 500 years after that point come into it?
It's actually antithetical to a role-playing point of view, because it uses a reference from outside of the context of the scenario.
Whilst AUC isn't brilliant for it ( being created 200 years after the start), it is at least a dating system from within the era of the game.

I certainly see your point, and I myself will play using AUC as well.. But much like you stated; AUC is also a dating format created after the game-start.

I just do not understand the idea behind trying to limit the fun of others - there are multiple reasons behind wanting a BC/AD switch in the game, most notably for modding purposes. And I can certainly understand why people would want it for immersion - being immersed has just as much to do with knowing what historically happend that year and what society looked like as it has to do with correct dating format. Almost all history books use BC/AD as dating references and people will therefore be more familiar with what time period they're playing in.

The thread has moved on a lot. Initially the argument was to take AUC away, or make BCE the primary display - thus making it less fun for those wanting (greater) immersion and role play.

It is my understanding that the suggestion was to add a switch straight from the beginning, atleast according to OP's post:

Why not just treat the current date system as the "absolute date" used for internal game logic, but when creating the "date string" (e.g. "1 Jan, 450") to display on the screen, subtract it by 753 years to create the display date and append " BC"?

There could just as easily be an option to switch between BC/AD and AUC, as well.

 

[Brynjar]

I just do not understand the idea behind trying to limit the fun of others

That's not the point. There is always a cost to adding, removing or changing features. Requesting the devs to implement a change in the code will most likely result in less/worse content somewhere else when we get closer to release. What you/they are asking the devs to do is to limit the fun of everyone (more potential bugs or something like extra events or trade goods) to get the option to use the date format they want.

The BC format is confirmed to be there as a tooltip, so people who want to compare to historical events won't have any issues.

It is my understanding that the suggestion was to add a switch straight from the beginning, atleast according to OP's post:

Although the op did suggest adding it as an option, it didn't appear to be the main point of his request.

What's the reason to not have BC and AD?

Until Arheo confirmed BC will be available as a tooltip, most of the discussion revolves around whether or not BC/AD or AUC (or other) is the best date format to use. Some continued requesting it after this as well, but most of the discussion after that until friday was about BC/BCE or other silliness.

 

[Cheexsta]

I never said that. I don't really care which format they end up with, as long as it's easy to know how long I have left until the game ends (that rules out basing it on consulships). Making it an option however is a different issue, as it will require more time to implement. By itself it's not a lot of time, but there are countless small requests like this which can be made, many of which will have a much bigger impact on 'immersion' than having the BC date format as an option instead of a tooltip. For initial release I would much prefer the devs to spend their time on content which have a bigger impact on gameplay, such as adding an extra event (which may take about as much time as adding this specific option) or even spending a bit of extra time on QA.

Fair point, though I think I have miscommunicated my point. When I said "so why is it such a problem to let people have a small feature they want", I should have said: "so why is it such a problem to let people ask for a small feature they want".

Do any of the proponents truly expect this to be a feature on release? I strongly doubt it. The point is to simply illustrate that there are people who want this feature - the cost/benefit analysis should be entirely up to the devs, not us.

What? Where have the code for optional UI formats been confirmed? That is what you guys are asking for now, and that's what I'm opposing. Most people seems to be happy enough with the tooltip which is already in EU: Rome. Like you said yourself almost two weeks ago, "EUR solved it quite well".

Here I definitely miscommunicated my point: the code is already in the game (both EUR and IR) to display the converted date as a tooltip. All the proponents of this suggestion want is the ability to switch what is shown in the UI and what is shown in the tooltip.

And yes, I did say that, because it works well enough for me; I'm merely advocating for why someone would want the ability to switch between the two. They are not mutually exclusive opinions. If such a switch were in the game, I'd happily use it. If I had to mod the game to do it, I wouldn't mind doing so. If I had to settle with just the tooltip showing the converted date, I'd live with it, as I have throughout EUR.

Spending additional resources to add nothing to gameplay is a waste of time at this point, which is why I would probably argue against anyone requesting more standardized map names at this point even though I find it quite ridiculous to have names like "Rome" and "Carthage" on the map along with "Mare Erythraeum", "Oceanus Atlanticus" etc.

The thing is, you say it adds "nothing to gameplay" because that's what it does for you. There are clearly people in this thread who believe it would add something to gameplay. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's a dealbreaker or that it should be prioritised over adding events etc. It's merely a 'nice to have' feature, IMHO.

 

[Brynjar]

Do any of the proponents truly expect this to be a feature on release? I strongly doubt it.

Seeing that there is no mention of dlc or patch (I may have missed it), I think it's fair to assume that's what they want. I really don't see the point of asking for such a thing almost a year before release if they don't want it to be in the game for release.

The thing is, you say it adds "nothing to gameplay" because that's what it does for you. There are clearly people in this thread who believe it would add something to gameplay. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's a dealbreaker or that it should be prioritised over adding events etc. It's merely a 'nice to have' feature, IMHO.

I guess that depends on which definition you prefer for the term gameplay. I don't see how being able to choose which date format to show would be covered by this definition, which isn't very uncommon:

"The features of a video game, such as its plot and the way it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects."
​

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gameplay

Having optional date formats may affect your perception of the game, like graphics and sound effects, but choosing one or the other would in no way prevent you from playing the game in exactly the same way. Those who are really bad at multitasking and slow at moving the mousepointer may have to spend an extra minute paused to check the tooltip every time they need to know which year it is over a 10+ hours campaign though, but I really doubt most players won't be able to check it with the game unpaused (People playing on speed 5 only, on decent computers may be an exception here, but I somehow doubt that they care much about knowing which BC date it is most of the time).

 

[Cheexsta]

Seeing that there is no mention of dlc or patch (I may have missed it), I think it's fair to assume that's what they want. I really don't see the point of asking for such a thing almost a year before release if they don't want it to be in the game for release.

You've been around long enough and own enough PDS games to know that PDS games are highly subject to change after release. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone making this suggestion expect the game to be changed at launch. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that people are just voicing what they want, in the hope that it eventually gets picked up by the devs - if not at release, then at some point in the future. If I remember correctly, the BCE date conversion was only added to EUR after its initial release.

I guess that depends on which definition you prefer for the term gameplay. I don't see how being able to choose which date format to show would be covered by this definition, which isn't very uncommon:

"The features of a video game, such as its plot and the way it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects."
​

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gameplay

Having optional date formats may affect your perception of the game, like graphics and sound effects, but choosing one or the other would in no way prevent you from playing the game in exactly the same way. Those who are really bad at multitasking and slow at moving the mousepointer may have to spend an extra minute paused to check the tooltip every time they need to know which year it is over a 10+ hours campaign though, but I really doubt most players won't be able to check it with the game unpaused (People playing on speed 5 only, on decent computers may be an exception here, but I somehow doubt that they care much about knowing which BC date it is most of the time).

I would argue that UI and UX would definitely constitute gameplay, but now we're splitting hairs over the definition. I'm sure you don't mean that graphical or audio tweaks shouldn't be made as they don't affect this definition of gameplay, after all.

But you are right - I doubt anyone will specifically change the way they play just because the game is in AUC.

Ultimately, it's a suggestion that has been made because there are people who want it. Whether it's worth adding to the game is a question only the devs can really answer.

 

[AKronblad]

If they make it all moddable (with base_year and alt_year, available for calculation and in localisation) we get best of three worlds:

1. Everyone can make a calendar to their own liking.
2. Paradox doesn't need to spend resources on creating tailormade calendars, but can make one generic setup, as simple as this.
3. People who only want AUC can get that too through cutting out alt_year (or basically making it identical to AUC).

(I wasn't even aware that BC/AD was implemented into EU:R.)

 

[Cheexsta]

If they make it all moddable (with base_year and alt_year, available for calculation and in localisation) we get best of three worlds:

1. Everyone can make a calendar to their own liking.
2. Paradox doesn't need to spend resources on creating tailormade calendars, but can make one generic setup, as simple as this.
3. People who only want AUC can get that too through cutting out alt_year (or basically making it identical to AUC).

(I wasn't even aware that BC/AD was implemented into EU:R.)

This. Absolutely this.

 

[Sindai]

The problem with "just make it moddable" is that that isn't free, it takes time that could have been spent working on other things.

This is one of those early marketing cycle tempests in a teapot that's only getting any play at all because we know so little about the game there's not much else to talk about. By release everyone is going to be busy complaining about bigger things and forget all about it.

 

[AKronblad]

The problem with "just make it moddable" is that that isn't free, it takes time that could have been spent working on other things.

This is one of those early marketing cycle tempests in a teapot that's only getting any play at all because we know so little about the game there's not much else to talk about. By release everyone is going to be busy complaining about bigger things and forget all about it.

How much time do you really think it would take? Paradox has already stated that there will be a tooltip for BC/AD and if they make their work right (and normally they do, since modability has been getting higher and higher attention, at least from my EU4 experience) they have made that base_year -> alt_year conversion generic (albeit in vanilla it's taking the form of base_year=AUC -> alt_year=BC/AD) and included in defines and localisation, thus the work is probably already done.

A programmer would make that work in a few minutes, if getting the right spec's, whether hardcoding it into the .exe or making it generic and moddable. So don't exaggerate the time required; I mean, it's a professional game developer making a professional game with advanced features and gfx, not an amateur working in an Excel spreadsheet.

 

[L'Afrique]

"I'm totally fine with being an 8th century tibetan using Anno Domini and modern english, or a 3rd-century Maurya noble using standard high german and Ab Urbe Condita, or a prussian of the 19th century giving missives in french written in modern digital sans serif, but it would be TOTAL INSANE IMMERSION BREAKING INACCURACY for my caledonian celtic empire stretching from the Highlands to Morocco to the Caucasus to use BCE instead of AUC."

Yeah, no, nonsense. The calendar is a translation issue. I'm jewish. We have an actual calendar in modern usage. And even among ourselves we use X CE, sometimes alongside the hebrew calendar, in 99% of cases because that is the context that is actually meaningful for us as modern people. Unless you're a rabbi or other learned religious figure, no one expects you to be able to understand hebrew dates. I myself have a phone app that shows the hebrew date and calendar and marks holidays because I sure as shit can't figure out what dates they actually are otherwise.

Again, calendars are a translation issue, just like presenting the game in english, french, german, etc instead of in authentic local languages for the period. I don't really care if a few weird nerds want an olympiad calendar or persian regnal dates or whatever, that is equally as silly as AUC. The info in the game should be presented in a way the player can intuitively understand.

And to those who are saying the date in PDOX games are irrelevant, lol. People on these forums regularly compare their games to historic events, and the games use historic dates for all sorts of mechanics.

I'd take the "BCE didn't exist!!!!" argument a lot more seriously if those folks were arguing in favour of DLXVIIABVRBECONDITA

 

[Rioting Soul]

If Paradox can't do negative dates then does that mean we will never get our Bronze Age Collapse grand strategy game?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If Paradox can't do negative dates then does that mean we will never get our Bronze Age Collapse grand strategy game?

More than likely if it were to be done, a relevant calendar would be found that counts up.

 

[durbal]

I wish ‘immersion’ were a banned word on these forums.

Thanks for adding BC btw.

 

[AKronblad]

I wish ‘immersion’ were a banned word on these forums.

Ha ha! And 'abstraction'...!